- PDF Free Download

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download ""

Darrell Morton
6 years ago
Views:

17 STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION 77 (2016) May 10, 2016 Elizabeth Trojan, Seth Wooley, and Robert Harris [hereinafter "we"] are electors and are the chief petitioners on this petition. We offer this statement regarding Petition 80 s compliance with procedural constitutional requirements. The Secretary of State s process for accepting such comments is inherently unfair to chief petitioners and other supporters of a proposed measure, because it allows opponents to file comments anytime before 5 p.m. on the final day that comments can be filed by the chief petitioners, thus allowing chief petitioners no opportunity to see the arguments made by opponents or to respond to those arguments. We expect ACLU and perhaps others to argue that Petition 77 violates Article XVII of the Oregon Constitution by proposing multiple unrelated amendments. The Secretary of State correctly rejected this argument when it was raised against Petition 8 (2006), which became Measure 46 (2006). ACLU then filed suit to appeal the Secretary s determination. After over 18 months of litigation, and considerable cost to the State and to the petitioners, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the multiple amendments proposed by Petition 8 (2006) were "closely related" and thus allowed by Article XVII. Meyer v. Bradbury, 341 Or 288, 142 P3d 1031 (2006). That decision has since governed "multiple amendment" cases in Oregon: State v. Rogers, 352 Or 510 (2012); Martinez v. Kulongoski, 220 OrApp 142 (2008); Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team (LINT) v. Kitzhaber, 341 Or 496 (2006). Petition 8 (2006) read: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 24, of the Constitution of Oregon, as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the people through the initiative process, or the Legislative Assembly by a three-fourths vote of both Houses, may enact and amend laws to prohibit or limit contributions and expenditures, of any type or description, to influence the outcome of any election. ACLU argued that Petition 8 (2006) violated Article XVII by offering an amendment allowing limits on political campaign contributions and expenditures and an unrelated amendment to restrict the Legislative Assembly s authority to change any limits that voters have enacted (3/4 instead of simple majority). We expect ACLU to make an argument against Petition 77 (2010), since it allows limits on political campaign contributions and expenditures and also allows expressly protects the constitutionality of requiring "disclosure of the true sources and amounts of such contributions and STATEMENT ON PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS RE PETITION 77 (2016) Page 1

18 expenditures (a) to the public and (b) in the communications they fund." Any such contention must be rejected, in light of Meyer v. Bradbury. We expect that some persons may file comments stating that Petition 77 violates Article IV, Section (1)(2)(d). That section states: (d) An initiative petition shall include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution. A proposed law or amendment to the Constitution shall embrace one subject only and matters properly connected therewith. Petition 77 does "include the full text of the proposed law or amendment to the Constitution." It contains every single word of the proposed amendment. There is no requirement that the measure include words which are not part of the proposed amendment. Barnes v. Paulus, 36 Or App 327, review denied 284 Or 81 (1978); Schnell v. Appling, 238 Or 202 (1964). Thank you for considering these comments. Dated: May 10, 2016 /s/ Daniel Meek Daniel W. Meek Attorney for Chief Petitioners STATEMENT ON PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS RE PETITION 77 (2016) Page 2

19 COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 77 (2016) May 10, 2016 Elizabeth Trojan, Seth Woolley, and Robert Harris [hereinafter "we"] are electors and are the chief petitioners on this petition. We offer these comments on the draft ballot title (DBT) for Petition 77 (2016). The entire text of the measure is this: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon, there is added an Article II, Section 25, of the Constitution of Oregon: Oregon laws consistent with the freedom of speech guarantee of the United States Constitution may: (1) limit contributions and expenditures (including transfers of money or resources) to influence the outcome of any election; and (2) require disclosure of the true sources and amounts of such contributions or expenditures (a) to the public and (b) in the communications they fund. The draft ballot title reads: Amends Constitution: Authorizes laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures, requiring campaign finance disclosures; previously enacted limits take effect Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote amends constitution to authorize laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures and requiring campaign finance disclosures; 2006 voter-enacted campaign limits/disclosure requirements take effect. Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains Oregon constitution s restrictions against campaign contribution and expenditure limits; 2006 voter-enacted campaign contribution/expenditure limits remain inoperative; campaign disclosure requirements unchanged. Summary: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The free-expression provision of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, section 8) has been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to ban laws that limit political campaign contributions or expenditures. The proposed measure amends the Oregon Constitution to allow laws limiting campaign contributions or expenditures. It also provides constitutional authorization for laws that require disclosure of the sources and amounts of campaign contributions and expenditures. If the proposed amendment passes, Ballot Measure 47 (enacted by the voters in 2006), which limits campaign contributions and expenditures and requires campaign finance disclosures, will become operative. Laws regulating COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 77 (2016) Page 1

20 campaign contributions and expenditures, including Ballot Measure 47, still must comply with the free-speech provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Summary: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The free-expression provision of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, section 8) has been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to ban laws that limit political campaign contributions or expenditures. The proposed measure amends the Oregon Constitution to allow laws limiting campaign contributions or expenditures. It also provides constitutional authorization for laws that require disclosure of the sources and amounts of campaign contributions and expenditures. If the proposed amendment passes, Ballot Measure 47 (enacted by the voters in 2006), which limits campaign contributions and expenditures and requires campaign finance disclosures, will become operative. Laws regulating campaign contributions and expenditures, including Ballot Measure 47, still must comply with the free-speech provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I. CAPTION. ORS (2)(a) requires a "caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably identifies the subject matter of the state measure." The DBT reads: Amends Constitution: Authorizes laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures, requiring campaign finance disclosures; previously enacted limits take effect This caption omits a central, key feature of Petition 77: protecting the constitutionality of laws requiring disclosure of the true sources and amounts of political contributions and expenditures... in the communications they fund." The generic term "campaign finance disclosures" does not convey this feature, which is usually called a "tagline." We suggest: Amends Constitution: Authorizes limiting campaign contributions/expenditures, requiring political advertisements disclose largest contributors; voter-enacted limits effective. The last 3 words are optional. Whether or not "previously enacted limits take effect" is a question of law that is not "the subject matter of the state measure." If such words are to be included, however, the term "enacted" should be changed to "voter-enacted" to indicate that the previously enacted limits were adopted by the voters of Oregon, not by the sitting Oregon Legislature. II. YES/NO STATEMENTS. ORS (2)(b) requires a "simple and understandable statement of not more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure is approved," while ORS COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 77 (2016) Page 2

21 (2)(c) requires a similar statement describing the result if the measure is not approved. The DBT reads: Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote amends constitution to authorize laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures and requiring campaign finance disclosures; 2006 voter-enacted campaign limits/disclosure requirements take effect. Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains Oregon constitution s restrictions against campaign contribution and expenditure limits; 2006 voter-enacted campaign contribution/expenditure limits remain inoperative; campaign disclosure requirements unchanged. The "yes" statement suffers the same weakness as the DBT s caption by using the generic term "disclosures" rather than specifying that the protected disclosures include taglines. Thus, we suggest: Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" authorizes laws limiting campaign contributions/expenditures, requiring campaign finance disclosures and that political advertisements identify largest contributors; 2006 voter-enacted campaign limits/disclosure requirements effective. Room for the words about political advertisements identifying their largest contributors is provided by removing "amends constitution," since that is already prominently stated in the caption. III. SUMMARY. ORS (2)(d) requires a ballot title summary consisting of a "concise and impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major effect." The draft ballot title summary reads: Summary: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The free-expression provision of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, section 8) has been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to ban laws that limit political campaign contributions or expenditures. The proposed measure amends the Oregon Constitution to allow laws limiting campaign contributions or expenditures. It also provides constitutional authorization for laws that require disclosure of the sources and amounts of campaign contributions and expenditures. If the proposed amendment passes, Ballot Measure 47 (enacted by the voters in 2006), which limits campaign contributions and expenditures and requires campaign finance disclosures, will become operative. Laws regulating campaign contributions and expenditures, including Ballot Measure 47, still must comply with the free-speech provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 77 (2016) Page 3

22 First, the sweeping statement about current interpretation of Article I, 8, is unwarranted. That section has not been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to ban all laws that limit political campaign contributions or expenditures. Thus, we insert the word "some" to moderate that statement. Second, the summary suffers the same weakness as the DBT s caption by using the generic term "disclosures" rather than specifying that the protected disclosures include taglines. Thus, we suggest: Summary: Amends the Oregon Constitution. The Oregon Constitution s free-expression provision (Article I, section 8) has been interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court to ban some laws that limit political campaign contributions and expenditures. The proposed measure amends the Oregon Constitution to (1) allow laws limiting campaign contributions and expenditures and (2) provides constitutional authorization for laws requiring disclosure of the sources and amounts of campaign contributions and expenditures, including laws requiring that political advertisements identify their major funders. If the measure passes, Ballot Measure 47 (enacted by voters in 2006), which limits campaign contributions and expenditures and requires campaign finance disclosures, will become operative. Laws regulating campaign contributions and expenditures, including Ballot Measure 47, still must comply with the free-speech provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have also changed the term "contributions or expenditures to "contributions and expenditures," as that is more understandable and reflects the actual language of Petition 77. Thank you for considering these comments. Dated: May 10, 2016 /s/ Daniel Meek Daniel W. Meek Attorney for Chief Petitioners COMMENTS ON DRAFT BALLOT TITLE FOR PETITION 77 (2016) Page 4

Repeals law prohibiting law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

Repeals law prohibiting law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. RE: Proposed Initiative Petition Repeals Law Limiting Use of State/Local Law Enforcement Resources to Enforce Federal Immigration Laws DOJ File #BT-22-17; Elections Division #2018-022 Requested Revisions